患者报告结果测量的开发和验证指南:范围审查。

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681
Andres Jung, Dimitris Challoumas, Larissa Pagels, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Tobias Braun, Kerstin Luedtke
{"title":"患者报告结果测量的开发和验证指南:范围审查。","authors":"Andres Jung, Dimitris Challoumas, Larissa Pagels, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Tobias Braun, Kerstin Luedtke","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objectives of this scoping review were to provide an overview of existing guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), review them for comprehensiveness and clarity and provide recommendations for their use based on the goals of the instrument developers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar up to 2 June 2023 to identify guidelines for the development and validation of PROMs. Screening of records and reports as well as data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To assess the comprehensiveness of the included guidelines, a mapping synthesis was performed and steps to develop and validate a measurement instrument outlined in the included guidelines were mapped to an a priori framework including 20 steps, which was based on the guideline by de Vet <i>et al</i>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 40 guidelines were included. Statistical advice (at least partially) was provided in 98% of the guidelines (39/40) and 88% (35/40) of the guidelines included examples for steps required to develop and validate PROMs. However, 78% (31/40) of the guidelines were not comprehensive and two essential steps in PROM development ('consideration and elaboration of the measurement model' and 'responsiveness') were not included in 80% and 72% of the guidelines, respectively. Three guidelines included all 20 steps and six included almost all steps (≥90% of steps) for developing and validating a PROM.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most guidelines on PROM development and validation do not appear to be comprehensive, and some crucial steps are missing in most guidelines. Nevertheless, for some purposes of PROMs, many guidelines provide helpful advice and support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At least 15 guidelines may be recommended, including three comprehensive guidelines that can be recommended for the development and validation of PROMs for most purposes (eg, to discriminate between subjects with a particular condition and subjects without that condition, to evaluate the effects of treatments (between a pre and post time-points) or to evaluate a status quo).</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"363-373"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Andres Jung, Dimitris Challoumas, Larissa Pagels, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Tobias Braun, Kerstin Luedtke\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objectives of this scoping review were to provide an overview of existing guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), review them for comprehensiveness and clarity and provide recommendations for their use based on the goals of the instrument developers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar up to 2 June 2023 to identify guidelines for the development and validation of PROMs. Screening of records and reports as well as data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To assess the comprehensiveness of the included guidelines, a mapping synthesis was performed and steps to develop and validate a measurement instrument outlined in the included guidelines were mapped to an a priori framework including 20 steps, which was based on the guideline by de Vet <i>et al</i>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 40 guidelines were included. Statistical advice (at least partially) was provided in 98% of the guidelines (39/40) and 88% (35/40) of the guidelines included examples for steps required to develop and validate PROMs. However, 78% (31/40) of the guidelines were not comprehensive and two essential steps in PROM development ('consideration and elaboration of the measurement model' and 'responsiveness') were not included in 80% and 72% of the guidelines, respectively. Three guidelines included all 20 steps and six included almost all steps (≥90% of steps) for developing and validating a PROM.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most guidelines on PROM development and validation do not appear to be comprehensive, and some crucial steps are missing in most guidelines. Nevertheless, for some purposes of PROMs, many guidelines provide helpful advice and support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At least 15 guidelines may be recommended, including three comprehensive guidelines that can be recommended for the development and validation of PROMs for most purposes (eg, to discriminate between subjects with a particular condition and subjects without that condition, to evaluate the effects of treatments (between a pre and post time-points) or to evaluate a status quo).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"363-373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112681","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本范围综述旨在概述现有的患者报告结果测量(PROMs)开发和验证指南,审查其全面性和清晰性,并根据工具开发者的目标为其使用提供建议:范围综述:方法:在 PubMed、Scopus、PsycInfo 和 Google Scholar 中进行文献检索,时间截至 2023 年 6 月 2 日,以确定 PROMs 的开发和验证指南。记录和报告的筛选以及数据提取由两名审稿人完成。为了评估所收录指南的全面性,我们进行了映射综合,并将所收录指南中列出的开发和验证测量工具的步骤映射到一个先验框架中,该框架包括20个步骤,是以de Vet等人的指南为基础的:结果:共纳入 40 项指南。98%的指南(39/40)提供了统计建议(至少部分),88%的指南(35/40)包含了开发和验证 PROM 所需的步骤示例。然而,78%(31/40)的指南并不全面,分别有 80% 和 72% 的指南没有包含 PROM 开发中的两个基本步骤("考虑和阐述测量模型 "和 "响应性")。三份指南包含了开发和验证 PROM 的全部 20 个步骤,六份指南几乎包含了所有步骤(≥ 90% 的步骤):讨论:大多数关于 PROM 开发和验证的指南似乎并不全面,而且大多数指南都缺少一些关键步骤。尽管如此,对于某些目的的 PROM,许多指南还是提供了有益的建议和支持:结论:至少有 15 项指南可以推荐使用,其中有 3 项综合指南可以推荐用于开发和验证 PROMs,以满足大多数目的(例如,区分患有特定疾病的受试者和未患有该疾病的受试者、评估治疗效果(前后时间点之间)或评估现状)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.

Objective: The objectives of this scoping review were to provide an overview of existing guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), review them for comprehensiveness and clarity and provide recommendations for their use based on the goals of the instrument developers.

Design: Scoping review.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar up to 2 June 2023 to identify guidelines for the development and validation of PROMs. Screening of records and reports as well as data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To assess the comprehensiveness of the included guidelines, a mapping synthesis was performed and steps to develop and validate a measurement instrument outlined in the included guidelines were mapped to an a priori framework including 20 steps, which was based on the guideline by de Vet et al.

Results: A total of 40 guidelines were included. Statistical advice (at least partially) was provided in 98% of the guidelines (39/40) and 88% (35/40) of the guidelines included examples for steps required to develop and validate PROMs. However, 78% (31/40) of the guidelines were not comprehensive and two essential steps in PROM development ('consideration and elaboration of the measurement model' and 'responsiveness') were not included in 80% and 72% of the guidelines, respectively. Three guidelines included all 20 steps and six included almost all steps (≥90% of steps) for developing and validating a PROM.

Discussion: Most guidelines on PROM development and validation do not appear to be comprehensive, and some crucial steps are missing in most guidelines. Nevertheless, for some purposes of PROMs, many guidelines provide helpful advice and support.

Conclusion: At least 15 guidelines may be recommended, including three comprehensive guidelines that can be recommended for the development and validation of PROMs for most purposes (eg, to discriminate between subjects with a particular condition and subjects without that condition, to evaluate the effects of treatments (between a pre and post time-points) or to evaluate a status quo).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
期刊最新文献
Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials. Identifying actionable statements in Chinese health guidelines: a cross-sectional study. Therapeutic quality of exercise interventions for chronic low back pain: a meta-research study using i-CONTENT tool. Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial. Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1